Pope Francis, Another Zealot?

Take a good hard look into the life of new pope. To give an overview he thinks that:

Homosexuality is still a sin. He tells people to respect homosexuals, but whent the Argintinian government is going to make sam-sex marriage legal he says, "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."

During his early life he gave up all his fancy posetions (personal cook, facy place to live, chauffeured limo) and made a pledge of poverty. This sounds awefully noble right? Wrong, look at why he had those things to start out with (because he was a cardinal). Think about what the Bible verson of Jesus would have done. He probably wouldn't have even considered giving those things out to preachers of his word anyway. So denying riches should be something that cardinals and popes HAVE to do an shouldn't be praised for. By the way, the pledge of poverty meant that he just had to live like everyone else in the community (what a saint -- sarcasm)

Lastly, there was a criminal complaint filed against him by a human rights lawyer for the abduction of two Jesuit priests. However, there was no evidence to prove that he had anything to do with it. :)

Replies to This Discussion

I believe we were talking about the covering of asses in this portion of the thread, which is why that paragraph began with the sentence that it did. Officials covering their ass when they make mistakes is something pretty common no matter where they happen to be officials, wouldn't you agree?

@Robert, I would agree that any official who messes up would cover their ass. However, if their actions are divinely inspired why would they need to cover their asses in the first place. That is what separates religious officials from other non-religious officials is the divine aspect.

"Yes, but holding someone to a standard isn't necessarily a matter of my expectations."

This is where I'm not getting it. What's the difference between holding someone to a standard and expecting them to achieve a standard. Is the former just reserving the right to say, "ha ha"?

Catholic priests may CLAIM the moral high ground. To me that's just silly. They're normal men like you and me. I therefore neither expect them to achieve to a higher standard nor do I consider myself to be in any way subject to their moral standards.

" Is it illogical to hold religious authorities to a higher ethical standard?"

Of course it is. It would be logical only if you maintained that they were, in fact, agents of the supernatural and consequently above normal human behavior THEY might believe that, but that doesn't mean we have to be equally silly.

You should always evaluate claims independently, absolutely. God and evolution gave you a brain, and you should use it!

I would just gently suggest that the claims you choose to evaluate should actually be the claims that the other group is making, rather than the claims that you are making.

Catholicism does not hold that its curial officials and popes are anything other than ordinary humans, with ordinary human weakness and failings. We would not claim that Cardinals or popes are necessarily holy men, in fact there is a long tradition in Catholicism of those we revere as saints castigating the lot of church officials as a bunch of sinful swine.

Catholicism offers moral and social teachings that it would claim are worthwhile, even truthful to the extent that humans can discern or teach the truth, which is pretty limited. So your professor can be a jackass, but perhaps what you're learning in his class might still have some merit.

Always, always question and evaluate, though. That's how you really learn, not by parroting any authority.

@Robert "God and evolution gave you a brain"
That right there is one of my largest problems with religion is when people say that their success is because of God. I work hard for everything I have accomplished in life. God had no part in that. When people tell me that I have God given talent I get a little offended because I had to work hard.
Not your fault, just a pet peve of mine

I can understand the peeve. The Catholic perspective would agree with you, actually. We're all about working hard and doing good works as necessary.

At the same time, whether you attribute it to God or luck or some really fascinating genomic statistics, being born in the wealthiest country in the world is a heck of a starting advantage. My guess is that you also weren't born into urban or rural poverty in the U.S., and that you received help and support from family, friends, teachers, community members and others along the way.

Recognizing those things in no way diminishes your hard work or accomplishments.

Actually I was born in New Zealand, my dad ran out when I was young to pursue work in the United States (he still stayed in contact), my mother basically raised me by herself and worked and maintained the house we had and made time for me (she was a hell of a woman). Any time my dad came back there would be violent screaming and crying and all that. I did poorly in school back then because there wasn't really anyone around to push me to do well. When I was 10 my father bribed me to come live with him where I was horribly miserable until just two years ago when I joined the military and got offered a scholarship (one which I risked everything to get from the military) to go to college on their dime for four years and become an officer. So no I wasn't quite as lucky as you may think I was.

I can't speak to this comedian you're talking about, but even back 500 years ago Dante in his Divine Comedy put a number of popes in hell in very amusing ways. Even at the height of the Inquisition, we didn't imprison Dante.

They sure as shit wanted to.

A blurb in the biography of Dante...

"All participants in public life had to belong to a guild, so Dante joined the union of physicians and apothecaries. Soon, he was elected as a prior (chief magistrate) of the city. When the republic was again ripped apart by political turmoil, Dante chose the wrong side. His opponents gained control, and the poet-philosopher was charged (falsely) of hostility to the church, fraud, and corrupt practices; he was fined and barred from holding office ever again. When he refused to pay the fine, he was sentenced to death by burning. Dante fled the city."